There is some thinking that total immutability could actually happen, once a blockchain hosts enough value and enough parties with different interests become invested, it could become too difficult to make any changes to the code anymore. See SegWit as a possible precursor.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Replying to @asglidden @byrongibson and
1/ I feel like we’re mixing things here. “Immutability” in the context of blockchains usually refers to immutability of the ledger, not the protocol.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
From painful experience, people use "immutable" to refer to a variety of things. Immutability of the ledger is guaranteed cryptographically, and so is frequently taken for granted. More often when people argue about immutability they're talking about not changing the rules.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @hugohanoi and
That's not my experience - people usually use it as an ill-chosen synonym for the tamper-resistance of the information stored on blockchains.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @finck_m @hugohanoi and
Right, but the information they have in mind is things like balances and state, not the ledger. A hard fork can affect balances without touching the ledger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @finck_m and
Elaine 🐤 🇮🇨 Retweeted Nick Johnson ( 📛 arachnid.eth)
"Immutability" can't really be used in the same context btwn Ethereum and Bitcoin, because in BTC state *is* the tx ledger, whereas with ETH it's separate. ETH can follow the letter of the law (immutability) while violating the spirit of the law.https://twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/933233147185053697 …
Elaine 🐤 🇮🇨 added,
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Bitcoin could do the same - with a hard fork that invalidates certain UTXOs, or inserts transactions that don’t require signature validation, for instance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @finck_m and
right, but invalidating UTXOs or inserting invalid tx's would be reversing tx's and tampering with the ledger, which violates "immutability". ETH can claim it never reversed any transactions with a straight face because it tampered with the state, not the ledger.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
If you told an accountant that you had directly tampered with the balances, they would certainly conclude that you had tampered with the ledger. That's how people who work with ledgers use the terms, or at least used them before Ethereum.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @eiaine and
Already mined ??? At the moment there will be an infinite supply as far as I’m aware that’s why I can’t understand the price and they altered the chain that’s why ethereum classic is the real deal with a hard cap on supply
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.